Nintendo Trying To Win Back Core Gamers With Wii U

Speaking at a shareholder meeting yesterday, Nintendo president Satoru Iwata discussed the company's goals for the Wii's successor, which aims to pick up the subset of gamers turned off by imprecise motion control. He said, "Wii was not accepted by core gamers because they did not want to abandon their preferred control approach. Additionally, Wii did not use HD because HD cost/performance at the time was low. Wii U makes it easier to use conventional controls. Also, the Wii U controller is not as big or heavy as it looks." Earlier comments from Shigeru Miyamoto indicate the new console will have more to offer in terms of online capabilities, but Nintendo isn't going to focus too heavily on that.

Comments

Re:Online

[Narcocide]

Bullet-proof, double-opt-in unique id exchanges required for P2P messaging and you call it "nonsense." I like the way you put that right out there to make it super obvious your vested interests lie entirely in SPAM and malware distribution. Good show, Sir! I welcome the bright future you envision where I will never again feel alone because cheap whores and porn bots nag me just as encessently from within the latest Zelda game as they do every time I accidentally log onto ICQ.

Re:Online

[Totenglocke]

Yea.....I'd say the friend code crap was even more of a reason why hardcore gamers rejected the Wii than the graphics. I can understand having a parental control that uses the friend code so that parents can let younger kids go online without worry, but it just makes everything else a pain in the ass for online play.

Games not technology

[the_raptor]

"Core gamers" flock to the console with the best games. The reason gamers like me abandoned Nintendo was because even the first party titles were pretty crap. The third party titles were largely unmitigated crap even when they were, bad, ports of PS/XBOX games.

Nintendo used to have a reputation for quality games, which they abandoned with the Wii.

You reap what you sow.

Re:Games not technology

[MemoryDragon]

Many of Nintendos games were good quality, however most third party titles lacked any quality whatsoever.
Good quality titles like Disaster Day of Crisis were drowned in the usual shovelware.

Re:Games not technology

[Xest]

I dunno, I think the controller was part of it too. Really, when I come home from work after a stressful day I just kinda want to veg on the couch and blow some stuff to peices. The last thing I want to do is jump around like a retard with reminders about how I should take a break getting in my way every 5 minutes

Even on a weekend though I didn't find it particularly great for deep immersive experiences, partly because well, the Wii just didn't have any, but partly because it's easier to mindlessly use a controller with your thumbs whilst you're transfixed on what's happening on screen than it is to again have to jump around, take breaks every now and again, and sometimes fight the imprecise nature of the original Wii mote as it fails to do what you wanted it too.

It's a great console for when you have friends over, you can have a real good time playing the party games, but you just can't really veg and chill too it, or get deeply immersed in games with it like you can the 360 / PS3.

The Wii U does look set to fix this but I'm not really confident Nintendo are going to pull it off right. Their displays of games were all footage taken from 360s/PS3s and when asked whether the Wii U would be able to look as good graphically as the 360 / PS3 rather than give a straight "yes" Nintendo instead gave an evasive "We're not sure"- that'll be a no then? A PR release from a company no one's ever heard of then followed this a few weeks later with an "estimate" that it'll be a billion times as good or something like that, but with that uncertainty from even Nintendo itself initially, I think I'll wait to see what it's actually like before I get too excited. I'm concerned about the talk of how the game can migrate to the controller too if you want the screen back- a controller wont be specced as well as the console so that means all games either have to have a very low detail mode, or the console isn't going to be that well specced in the first place after all.

Now they come forward with "Oh we don't care about the internet too much" or whatever it was they said and it sounds like they're being half arsed on that too.

I dunno, maybe it'll rock, but thus far signals from even Nintendo themselves don't seem terribly encouraging.

Re:Games not technology

[Eponymous Coward]

"Core gamers" is a small market, but I think they are chasing it because that's the market that is willing to pay $50 for a game. I really don't understand the reluctance by Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo to drastically lower prices. If new games were $20 instead of $50 or $60, I'm pretty certain my game library would be more than 3x as big.

I've been burned by too many crappy $50+ games that I'm very reluctant to buy any more. I've been pretty happy picking up bargains on Steam and playing games on my phone.

Re:Games not technology

[bloodhawk]

I hate game prices as much as anyone and think they should be cheaper, but you have to remmeber a game has to generate income for the developer, for the developers failed games(for every success their are generally at least one or more games that lose money), the distributer, the retailer and the console maker. console makers generally have very large investments and depend on the game licensing revenue to fund the hardware. for games to be $20 you would probably be looking at significantly more upfront cost for the console and remember while you may buy 3 times as many games there are plenty that would still only buy a couple each year.

Re:Games not technology

[RogueyWon]

"Core gamers" is anything but a small market. Call of Duty: Black Ops was the most successful entertainment product of 2010 - not just the most successful game - and while I don't regard it as a particularly good game, it is anything but a casual title. And a lot of the people who bought Black Ops (and probably more besides) will be buying either Modern Warfare 3 or Battlefield 3 - or probably both - later this year.

Re:Games not technology

[Tridus]

Because your gaming catalog would still be bringing in the same amount of revenue to them, and people who won't buy triple the number of games would result in less money? And because AAA games are a lot more expensive to make then dinky little iPhone apps?

Re:Games not technology

[Eponymous Coward]

Valve has shown that lowering prices increases revenues.

If the problem is that you can't sell for less because there are too many middlemen to pay, then it's obvious what your problem is.

Re:Games not technology

[Eponymous Coward]

It's only small relatively speaking. The mobile games market is now larger than the console market and the momentum is solidly behind mobile at the moment. There are a lot of reasons for that, price being one of them.

Did you see the recent interview with the former Sony chief who launched the original Playstation in '96? In it, he projected that unless something changes, Apple devices will be *the* video game market in the relatively near future. It's killing everything else.

Re:Games not technology

[Eponymous Coward]

That's what publishers are afraid of. So far, I think all pricing experiments have shown the reverse to be true.

AAA games are like blockbuster movies. Formulaic, expensive, risky, and usually money losers. All the innovation is happening in mobile right now with some notable exceptions (like Kinect). It's easy to take chances trying something new on a game that will sell for a few dollars. If you need to charge $50 for it, you end up going the safe route with Hockey 2012 which is almost the same as Hockey 2011 which is very similar to Hockey 2010.

Re:Games not technology

[pecosdave]

I'm with you on the controller sentiment. I put off buying a Wii until last November, I just didn't really want one, the controller being the chief reason. The New Super Mario Brothers being more or less classic in it's use of controls motivated me to get the red system. My kid loves it all the way around, I play NSMB and Mario Kart Wii, both of which could be confused as games using a decidedly non-Wii like control scheme.

On that note my DS games make little to no use of the touch-screen/stylus.

Re:Games not technology

[Seumas]

As someone who buys a lot of games every year and owns every console and over 400 games on Steam and has shelves of old game boxes, let me say what most disappointed me about Nintendo's future via their E3 press conference:

+ They announced a Mario game.
+ Another Mario game.
+ Another Mario game.
+ Another Mario game.
+ Another Zelda game.
+ Another Zelda game.
+ Another Zelda remake.
+ A pokemon game.

After thirty years, I think it's time to start doing new things instead of rolling out another iteration (or worse, a remake) of the same two or three franchises. Yes, they're cute. Yes, it's nostalgic. No, it's not enough to justify buying a console. I want that Nintendo pinache and a focus on fun games, but not necessarily in the form of the 800th Mario or Zelda game. And yes, there are other games for the Nintendo platform: shovelware.

Re:Games not technology

[Skylinux]

Exactly, I would consider purchasing a console if the games where not as ridiculously priced as they are.
Games are throw away products and they are priced like they are some sort of investment.

Back when the WII first came out I was very close to purchasing one but it had two issues:
1) No DVD-Video support
2) Games are too expensive (issue of all consoles)

So I stayed a PC gamer who rather drops 200 Euro on a Video card then a console with shackles.

Re:Games not technology

[WhirlwindMonk]

No, they would spend the same development budget. They aren't producing more games, he's buying more games that they're already producing. And he said more than 3x as many, which means they are getting more than $60 from him.

Re:Games not technology

[ifrag]

Now they come forward with "Oh we don't care about the internet too much" or whatever it was they said and it sounds like they're being half arsed on that too.

And that statement right there shows just how serious Nintendo is about getting the "Core Gamers" back, which is not at all. A couple generations back with the PS2 and Xbox1 was the time when not caring about the internet was actually moderately acceptable. Things didn't really work too well, and the PS2 required special additional hardware, and add that to the fact there was only a handful of games actually worth playing online on either console, it wasn't a platform killer to not focus on it. In fact, I think the Gamecube actually did have some kind of network adapter, but for the one or two games that used it, not a big deal.

Now look at Xbox360 and PS3, where network play has been a much larger focus. I'd say overall, Microsoft actually has the better online offering at this point despite the premium fee to actually use it for anything, although I have used PSN a bit and it seems somewhat functional, recent trouble aside anyway. In fact, Sony probably should have at least provided some kind of low quality headset right with the system like Microsoft does, although there is the benefit of using pretty much any Bluetooth headset on their system.

So without Nintendo providing some kind of significant core network services, which 3rd party developers can easily jump on, they are effectively shooting themselves in the foot yet again. And even if it can stand toe-to-toe with the others on graphics or control, it will still be the less desirable port of the title if multi-player doesn't hold its own. No matter how much Nintendo tries to be unique or innovative in other areas, failing to provide on some basic services like full featured multi-player with voice communication puts it firmly back in place as the developer shunned platform.

Re:Games not technology

[Enderandrew]

The sad thing is that for people who love Mario and Zelda games, actually Nintendo fails in this regard.

Mario 64 was the killer launch title of N64. They promised a sequel that generation and it never happened. They promised a proper sequel during the Gamecube era, and it never happened.

The Gamecube version of Zelda became the Wii version of Zelda, because they pretty much missed the Gamecube lifespan.

Nintendo is pretty good about having a few good first-party titles at launch. The rest of the console's lifespan is another story.

My N64 gathered dust. My Gamecube gathered dust. My Wii gathered dust. Why repeat the process?

Re:Games not technology

[redemtionboy]

That's assuming that CoD players are the core gaming market and not just that non-core gamers play CoD as well. I know plenty of people that only have a handful of games, and CoD is one of them.

Re:Games not technology

[N0Man74]

EVERY popular platform drowns in shovelware. Every console generation that I can remember had tons of shovelware on whatever happens to be the most popular system(s).

If the PS3 were in the lead, you'd see all the shovelware there (like in the previous 2 generations), and we'd be complaining about Sony instead.

Re:Games not technology

[dreemernj]

Drowning is a matter of percentages. PC has tons of shovelware, but a high enough percentage of games are good to save it. PC is also different in that old games don't have to be retired because a new version of the PC is out. The garbage games tend to vanish quickly, and the good games have been known to stick around for a very long time. StarCraft and Counter-Strike are obvious examples.

I refer to Sturgeon's Law when looking at the catalog of games for a console. I assume that if a console is decent, 80% of the games are crap. If the percentage is higher, the good games are likely to drown. If the percentage is lower, the console is godly. But that's just my random observation.

Re:Games not technology

[CronoCloud]

Your problem isn't that the games are actually expensive...the problem is you live in Europe. So you get VAT, import duties, and exchange rate issues.. Not to mention the costs of translation to all the different languages.

And even after you buy that 200Euro video card, you still have to buy games, right?

Re:Games not technology

[Half-pint HAL]

Probably because most PC gamers buy only on-line. Console gamers often buy on the high street, where shelf space means shovelware physically squeezes out the good stuff. And buying on-line kills the impulse buy, replacing it with lots of review reading, so shovelware is less likely to sell well on the PC.

Re:Games not technology

[CastrTroy]

This is the problem with the Wii. Since it had motion control, everybody thought they just had to use motion control in some aspect, or their game would fail. The worse example I can think of this is Fallout. It make you shake the controller to jump. This was fine until you had to make a precise jump to get on top of something. The combined action of shaking the wiimote, and moving forward was something I found quite difficult. They could have easily mapped jump to a button, but they made it so you had to shake the wiimote, making the game very frustrating. Some of the best games (single player) on the wii use very little if any, motion control.

Re:Games not technology

[Lunix Nutcase]

So why doesn't the PC likewise suffer from drowning in shovelware?

You've not been to a brick & mortar store in years have you? The PC game titles section is usually 90% or more shovelware. The PC has been drowning in shovelware games for the better part of a decade.

Re:Games not technology

[Lunix Nutcase]

If new games were $20 instead of $50 or $60, I'm pretty certain my game library would be more than 3x as big.

And how is that attractive to them when they will either make the same or less profit?

Re:Games not technology

[Lunix Nutcase]

Yes, it may increase revenues but increasing revenues doesn't mean squat if they don't get the same profit margin. The games are where the biggest profit margin is when it comes to consoles so unless that $20 dollar title has a larger margin than the $50 title you'll never see new games being sold at that cost.

Re:Games not technology

[Lunix Nutcase]

All the innovation is happening in mobile right now

Yeah lame ports of console and PC games and the vast amounts of solitaire clones, etc really shows a lot of "innovation".

Re:Games not technology

[residieu]

My favorite wii games didn't make much use of the motion sensors. But the pointer is an extremely useful UI element. With controller + pointer + nunchuck you still have plenty of UI elements for most games. 4 Buttons, 1 stick + pointer. + 8 more buttons (Dpad, 1, 2, +, -) in less accessible positions.

Re:Games not technology

[Eponymous Coward]

That doesn't make any sense. The marginal cost of another copy of a video game is very close to zero. Increasing revenues is really what it is all about.

Re:Games not technology

[metamatic]

If new games were $20 instead of $50 or $60, I'm pretty certain my game library would be more than 3x as big.

New games are $20 or $30, if you wait for the Greatest Hits or Game of the Year release.

And right now you can get Assassin's Creed II for $9.99 on PSN.

Re:Games not technology

[metamatic]

My N64 gathered dust. My Gamecube gathered dust. My Wii gathered dust. Why repeat the process?

Absolutely. Look at Metacritic's game releases by score by year for the Wii, for 2011, and you can see what the problem is. Count up the number of "green" games, and total by year.

2007: 19.
2008: 42.
2009: 64.
2010: 44.
2011: a miserable 10, if the current rate continues.

In comparison, the PS3 has had more good games than the Wii every single year, and its lead has increased every year.

So the Wii had three years where there were a decent number of good games. And a lot of those were ports of older games. And even then, other consoles had more good games, and when games were multiplatform, the Wii versions were usually inferior.

I have no interest in Wii U at this point. What I want from Nintendo is for them to either ship games, or get third party developers shipping games that don't suck. Or ideally, both.

Ironically, with the DS it's the opposite problem. There's a ton of good DS software, and I have no interest in the 3DS because they're moving in the direction of stupid gimmicks. I'm actually more interested in Sony's offerings for my next handheld game system.

Re:Games not technology

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

So why doesn't the PC likewise suffer from drowning in shovelware?

Hahahaha!

I haven't checked on the numbers recently, but at the turn of the century a successful console game was 250k+ copies sold. On the PC is was 100k. The reason for that is there's so much crap on the PC that stores don't have the shelf space to keep them as long.

The PC has been 'drowning in shovelware' for decades.

Re:Games not technology

[scot4875]

PC has tons of shovelware, but a high enough percentage of games are good to save it.

Umm, no. The ratio of good games to crap on the PC is abysmal. The main difference is that you never *see* the crap, and what gets stuck on store shelves in the few places that stock PC games (although still 90% crap) is just the cream of the crop of the crap.

With the Wii, and the PS2 before it, all of that crap that somehow got approved by Nintendo and Sony for publication gets stuck right up there along with Zelda and Little Big Planet -- it's particularly bad at places like Target that don't carry a lot of the more obscure games that *aren't* crap, making the ratio even worse.

--Jeremy

Re:Games not technology

[scot4875]

My favorite wii games didn't make much use of the motion sensors. But the pointer is an extremely useful UI element.

Agree with this 100%. The pointer was, hands down, the best use of the Wii controller, and easily the biggest improvement in consoles' UIs this generation.

Most of the good games made very sparing use of the motion controls, and I think the ones that did make good use of them did it quite well. The visceral feel of the deathblows in No More Heroes was very satisfying. Unfortunately, for every game that found a novel way to use motion controls, there were 10 that used a generic waggle to do something stupid that should have just been mapped to a button.

--Jeremy

Re:Games not technology

[tebixan]

It's funny when you go to a discount warehouse like Costo or Sam's Club, and see their video game selection. Everything sold in those stores is selected based on price, so whoever is in charge of buying video games must just pick the cheapest 50 or so games on the market to stock their shelves. Every single PC game is either based on My Little Pony or a point and click mystery type game. All of the console games are bargin bin mini-game compliations. I'm sure they sell plenty of that stuff to grandparents who don't know any better too.

Re:Games not technology

[MikeBabcock]

Rare made excellent Nintendo games. That won't be happening anymore though.

Re:Games not technology

[thetoadwarrior]

what planet are you on? Of course it does. In fact real PC gaming is closer to death than it has been perhaps at anytime where as all the shovelware is exceptionally popular and a huge part of PC gaming these days. Though to be fair it's always been that way. Those old '1,000 games' discs you could buy were most shit.

Re:Games not technology

[Golddess]

And buying on-line kills the impulse buy

While I am but one person, I've bought many a game on Steam on an impulse simply because it was on sale.

Re:Games not technology

[tepples]

You have a point there. So on which platform do you recommend that a smaller studio attempt to rise above the shovelware?

Re:Games not technology

[Lunix Nutcase]

The cost of copying software is probably the least contributing factor to the cost of software so this argument thrown out countless times by slashtards is completely stupid. Secondly, increasing revenues is not what it's about. If they don't get as much profit through increased sales at a lower price point they will not lower the price. Despite what the dot com companies said you can not just make it up through volume.

Re:Games not technology

[thetoadwarrior]

I'm not sure a smaller studio had a chance. Shovelware will be around anywhere it is easy to develop. The Wii gets a load of hassle over shovelware I think purely because it's a very popular console. If you look at Android gaming it's rubbish. Xbox indie games do have some awesome games but there is a load of rubbish there too that doesn't make much money but it is because entry is easy. The PC is the freest system to develop on and reaches the most people. It makes sense for a small developer or larger developers wanting to develop something cheap and quick.

I think a smaller studio would be wise to start on the PC and put quite a lot of effort into making their game known and then if it proves popular choose the Iphone, Xbox live, Wiiware or some other low entry barrier option where people are happy to pay out for games. I just think rising above the shovelware is more about how you sell your game (and making a good game of course) because anything without shovelware is probably going to be hard and expensive to get onto.

Re:Games not technology

[bloodhawk]

That data is heavily biased and incomplete. It completely negates lost profit from future sales that will no longer occur as people took the opportunity to buy at the sale price, it also is a sales spike that cannot be maintained for anything but a very short term (their are not an infinite number of buyers) and will then result in a huge downturn in profits. In long run unless they can maintain those sort of sales for longer than the ridiculously short periods valve is dicussing it is likely to be a net loss if done at launch, but can be great at the end of a games life to get a final bit of revenue out before it is dead.

for example if I know I have an audience for a product of 20 people and sell 2 of the product per month at a profit of $100, If I reduce the price 75% and reduce my profit to say $25 per product but increase my sales to 10 people a month, I can claim I have increased profit by 25% and increased sales 500% by such an offer. however 2 months down the road instead of getting $200 a month I now get 0$ a month and overall have lost $1500. You cannot calculate short term profit gains with such a scheme without considering the long term losses, for the product example here my sales have to increase more than 4 fold for the life of the product in order to just break even by discounting.

Re:Games not technology

[dreemernj]

I didn't even realize there were places that really stocked PC games any more. The video game stores I visit have made 10 or 12 PC games at a time.

Re:Games not technology

[Laurence0]

*facepalm*

The €200 video card is instead of the €200 Wii (or is the Wii a little more than €200? Unsure), he can then get games on Steam for €20 or €30, instead of €60 or €70. Same upfront investment in hardware, cheaper games.

Come on, people, it's not rocket surgery.

Re:Games not technology

[Eponymous Coward]

I think we are arguing the exact same thing here. The marginal cost of producing an additional copy of software *is* zero. So if a company spends $100 producing and selling a game, then their profit is revenue - $100. That's why I was saying it's all about raising their revenue number. You say it's about making more profit. When your costs are fixed, the two are really the same thing.

I posted a link somewhere else in this thread where Valve released numbers to show what happens when they put games on sale. Slashing the price of a game by 75% resulted in 15% more revenue.

If your game includes advertising (like Angry Birds on Android) or you can purchase virtual items for the game, you may very well be able to make it up through volume.

Re:Games not technology

[CronoCloud]

Since he mentioned "Shackles" I figured he wouldn't be a Steam user. 200 Euros is 290 US dollars, that's almost enough for a PS3 or Xbox 360 let alone a Wii. All 3 have "stores" where you can get games for less than the price of some retail games.

Also, using a console means you have less need for Windows, so you can use Linux. I am always surprised how the PC gaming proponents on Slashdot co-exist with the Linux proponents. You'd think the Linux people would be promoting console gaming.

And yes, I've played nethack on a PS2 and PS3, so there, I made the obvious "console gaming" joke already.

Re:Games not technology

[pecosdave]

Agreed, though I've actually started to like the limited motion sensing on the nunchuck+Wiimote version of controlling Mario Kart I still like the Gamecube control option and my girlfriend prefers the Gamecube control hands down. Picking stuff up with a shake on New Super Mario Brothers Wii isn't all that bad, but truthfully I would probably be happier with a mapped button.

Beyond that I really do prefer the classic approach on non-kiddie games across the board.

Re:Games not technology

[Eponymous Coward]

Steam sales do cannibalize some future sales for sure. But I would guess that they do far more to expand their market. Most of the games I've bought on Steam sales I would never have bought at full price, so from me, they are getting money they wouldn't have otherwise. A few of the games have sucked, but when I've only paid $5 for them, I don't really care and am not discouraged from buying in the future.

Why can't it do more than one thing at once?

[incognito84]

I don't understand why the Wii you couldn't have it's current setup plus a WiiMote or possibly something similar to Kinect. It might drive up the price a bit but that way it'd keep everyone happy.

Re:Why can't it do more than one thing at once?

[PARENA]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The Wii U will support both the new controller and Wii remote at the same time, if that's what you mean. One example during the presentation was golf, where the controller is on the floor and you can see the ball on that screen, while you swing your remote to hit that ball, which then flies visibly on the TV. Is that the kind of thing you meant?

Lost touch

[PhrostyMcByte]

The one big advantage the Wii had (motion control, and all the party-friendly games that came with it) has been trumped by both the 360 and PS3. The smaller advantage it has is price -- that can be a good thing to compete on, but the 360 is closing that gap as well (I'm convinced the only reason the base 360 still costs more is because they know it's worth more and people are glad to pay for it).

That was boss Satoru Iwata's response when asked by a shareholder today whether the hardcore will accept Nintendo's next home console.

"Wii was not accepted by core gamers because they did not want to abandon their preferred control approach," he said, as reported by Andriasang.

Yea, the motion controls were a little stupid for "hardcore" games, but I don't think any new controller (their Classic Pro wasn't the best, but would have been acceptable) is going to solve that. The Wii has so many other problems.

A) Multiplayer is a huge attraction of modern games. The Wii just doesn't make it as easy, big, or social as the 360 does. B) The graphics were a toy in comparison. C) Very few "hardcore" games were made for it, simply because the vast hardware differences forced game companies to make the choice of 360/PS3 or Wii with little ability to scale between them. The few ports and cross-platform games that came out for it were typically underwhelming shells of their true selves.

The CEO then suggested the eye-catching Zelda HD tech demo showcased at E3 was only possible on the Wii U.

"Regarding Zelda HD, Japanese developers said that it could not be replicated on other machines," Iwata said.

And this is just untrue, of course. Though there is the possibility that he actually believes it.

Re:Lost touch

[Jurramonga]

Bingo. The first console I bought this generation was the Wii. When I had friends over it was a lot of fun, but everyone else owned a 360. I ended up buying one myself just so I could play with them online, and my Wii stopped seeing use altogether for years until we got Netflix (now that's the only thing it's used for). The other problem Nintendo is going to have is getting back the market share that Microsoft and Sony already have. Are you going to buy Call of Duty 9 for the Wii U, the Xbox 720, or the PlayStation 4? More people will be playing on the Xbox/Playstation (based on this exact same logic...), why would you even consider it for the Wii U? I don't think Nintendo stands a chance at gaining the hardcore gamer back. Good luck to them anyway. I really hope they can prove me wrong.

Re:Lost touch

[lpp]

I'm surprised you kept using the Wii even for Netflix given you had a 360 (unless you were unwilling to get the higher tiered Xbox Live account needed for Netflix access on that platform). I had a Wii and a 360 and set up Netflix on both machines, first the Wii and then later on the 360. I switched to the 360 because with the Wii I consistently saw stuttering and pausing and the video quality wasn't great. When I switched to the 360 for Netflix, I saw a lot less mid-stream pausing and it seemed to me that the video quality improved. The only thing I can imagine was that it was related to the hardware discrepancy between the two.

Re:Lost touch

[LordLimecat]

When in the last 10 years has nintendo HAD the hardcore gamers? First it was PS2, then Xbox, then Xbox360/PS3....

What Nintendo does and has been doing is to aim at the larger crowds, and all their sales figures over the last several years indicate they do that really really well.

Re:Lost touch

[supersloshy]

I thought the Gamecube was pretty hardcore. Viewtiful Joe, a ton of Resident Evil, Fire Emblem, Baten Kaitos, and you can't forget the great console exclusives like Mario/Zelda/Metroid/Pikmin/F-Zero, many of those are still some of Nintendo's best games to this day (especially Metroid Prime which is one of the best reviewed games of all time). It didn't have quite as much third-party support as other consoles, but it had several amazing hardcore titles and I really loved my Gamecube. I've only just recently gotten a PS2 and it feels like I'm not missing out on too much. The main reason that the Wii isn't considered "hardcore" by other gamers is because it's graphics technology is outdated right now (with Wii U that's expected to change greatly). Seriously, look at the PS3/360: many of the best games for those consoles are dual-platform titles. Either you make a game for the 360, PS3, both, or just the Wii by itself; porting is impossible at this point.

I did a little research on this topic on my blog a while back and what I found was rather shocking: the PS3 and 360 have many more "great" games than the Wii does. I can only assume that the main reasons that is so is because of:

1) The "casual" stereotype that people have about the Wii, which is somewhat false.

2) Lack of proper graphics technology to do ports of the more recent games.

That said, the Wii has several hardcore titles (2010 was a great year for those): Donkey Kong Country Returns, Metroid Prime 3/Trilogy/Other M, Zelda Twilight Princess/Skyward Sword, Monster Hunter Tri, both Super Mario Galaxy games (trust me; these are hardcore games), Xenoblade, Last Story (which probably won't see an American release, sadly), Okami (a PS2 port), Trauma Center/New Blood/Trauma Team, Zack & Wiki... I could go on. I for one think that the Wii U, being able to support porting more easily, will get it a much more varied library than the Wii has (especially its depressing lack of RPGs) and I'm very excited for that. Either way, as long it has Zelda and Metroid, I'll buy it ;)

Re:Lost touch

[ActionDesignStudios]

I have and use both and they both work perfectly for me with no issues. The only downside is that the Wii does not offer HD streams but that can also be a good thing depending on if you have a bandwidth cap. As far as I know, the Xbox 360 version of Netflix will not let you turn HD streams off if they are available.

sure

[Verunks]

yeah let's go from motion control to using a tablet with buttons, that's really what we wanted
I think nintendo will really fuck up this time with the wii u, having more power than ps3 and 360 right now it's useless, we have seen this with pc gaming for years, developers won't make better games for one platform, and when the new playstation and xbox will come out the wii u hardware will be already obsolete, also if the games are mostly the same of pc/ps3/360 why whould I buy it, just to play with that half-assed controller? or maybe to play another mario? I'm tired of playing mario, especially the 3d one.
Imho right now the best combination is pc+ps3, with pc you get 90% of the multiplatform games and with the ps3 you get a lot of nice first party games, the xbox 360 aside from halo and gears of war, doesn't have any exclusive that you can't play on either pc or ps3, same thing with the wii/wii u you get mario and zelda but that's it

Re:sure

[__aailob1448]

That is the correct assessment but I'll disagree about the PC + PS3 choice.

While I'm not a big Halo fan (I finished the first and 2nd Halo campaigns I think), you have to admit that multiplayer Halo is like a religion to many people and is not to be dismissed lightly.

And yes, Uncharted and God of War brought me a lot of joy but the online experience on the PS3 sucks compared to Xbox Live.

Personally, I want to play street fighter online and the Xbox is the best platform to do so. PC + 360 ain't cutting it.

I'm saying this as someone who only owns a PC and a PS3 at the moment.

Re:sure

[LordLimecat]

yeah let's go from motion control to using a tablet with buttons, that's really what we wanted
I think nintendo will really fuck up this time with the wii u

Just want to point out that this was exactly the attitude of most of the media and forum pundits when details on the Wii came out (even fun was had at the expense of the name), and the Wii then went on to slaughter the other 2 consoles in sales for several years afterwards. For quite some time the Wii had more sales than the Xbox360 and PS3 combined.

Target Demographic

[polyp2000]

I almost bought a Wii - but when the excitement of the Wii controllers wore off i'd played a couple of Wii games. I realised that im not interested in most of the "cutesy" games. Im not interested in Mario, Zelda, Sonic and all that jazz I never was when i was a kid. I also find the music for Nintendo games to be very annoying - mostly sound like crappy midi scores to me. Im pretty certain if i were to buy a Wii - I would rapidly bore of it and it would gather dust under the bed. I guess im just not the target demographic. I like games with depth and detail - not just visually and sonically but with storyboard too. I want games that immerse me in believable worlds and make me feel part of the story.

I appreciate my above comments might seem shortsighted - particularly if you are a nintendo die hard - but my shortsightedness i probably mirrored by a large proportion of the more mature gamers out there. - That is what nintendo have to change!

Wii U looks pretty decent - although IMHO - Wii U is what the original Wii should have been when it came out. At the time it would have been able to compete on a more level playing field - spec's wise . Just like its predecessor the Wii U will feel technically "last gen" but has a fancy new controller to give it a different edge.
In terms of the Wii U's power - its just not a big enough leap for me to take the plunge.

If this is what Wii U is like .. just lets wait and see what the other two console manufacturers throw on the table...

N.

Re:Target Demographic

[Liambp]

After reading your comments about Nintendo Music I cannot help seeing a vision of a ferociously concentrating hard core shooter fanatic pulling off headshots in "Now that's what I Call Modern Battlefield Honor 77" while a jingly Marioesque soundtrack plays in the background.

It's quite a psychedelic image.

Re:Target Demographic

[pecosdave]

Headshots on the heads of your friends Mii characters.

I told my friends that I was a gamer...

[bmo]

And that I played with my Wii.

I got funny looks.

--
BMO

not going to work

[Gravis Zero]

a HUGE chunk of core gamers want a good online multiplayer system. if you are not going to put much focus on making your online capabilities very good or popular then you are just ignoring what the core gamers want.

then again, maybe if they offered the console in a few more colors...

Re:Online

[Tridus]

Yeah, and the most secure server on the planet is the one that's locked in a bunker and not plugged in. Not terribly useful though.

The system you so love because it blocks spammers also acts as an effective barrier for normal communication. It's a PITA that people just don't bother with. Usability matters, and Nintendo doesn't have it.

Reverse TARDIS?

[Frogking]

They say, "the Wii U controller is not as big or heavy as it looks." So... it looks bigger on the outside than it is on the... outside?

Re:Reverse TARDIS?

[tepples]

It looks bigger on the photo than it is in the player's hands.

Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck!

[Rogerborg]

Hands up everybody who just posted that.

Now, put your hand down if you said exactly the same about the Wii.

Anyone still got their hand up? Didn't think so.

Sure, you might be right this time, but Nintendo's massive gold swimming pool chock full of million Yen bills, hookers and blow says otherwise.

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck!

[Lysander7]

This article pertains to hardcore gamers, which is not included in the original and probably not even the Wii U's demographic. Sure, it had the best sales and made a lot of money, but we're referring to the "hardcore gamers". In this regard, the Wii did not sell well.

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck!

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Actually, a lot of hands would still be raised. You'll note that many of the harshest comments above reference bad experiences with Wiis that they purchased. I'm not sure where this "everyone said the Wii would suck" meme came from--the Wii sold well, but it was nowhere near as amazing as a lot of us thought it would be. Many of us were excited by the concept of motion controllers. It was only after we started playing that we saw that imprecise Wii motion controls were only good for exercise and party games. (Not that there's anything wrong with exercise and party games, but judging from Nintendo's comments it seems the company would like to sell other kinds of games as well.) Among gamers, the reaction to the Wii was hype followed by disappointment. Right now gamers are skeptical of Wii U. They could still be surprised, but we'd have to see better games than we saw on the Wii or than we're seeing on the 3DS (they're still waiting for their good swimming pools to start filling up on that one).

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck!

[Qzukk]

If they want hardcore gamers, they're going to have to bring the hardcore games.

Anyone with any interest at all in RPGs has a PS3. Anyone with any interest at all in shooters has an xbox. Only people with an interest in party games, cooking mama, golf, or old school nintendo gaming have the Wii.

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck!

[elrous0]

Actually, the Wii did suck. And I say that as someone who owns one myself. Sure, it's great for kids and parties. And it's got some appeal to the casual market. But for the hardcore gamer (or even moderate gamer) it's pretty much just a toy. Mine has mostly stayed in the closet since I bought it. I played it some at first, and still occasionally break it out for visitors, but I never really considered it a good console. It looks like crap on my big HDTV, any gaming session of any length leaves me with a sore arm, and there are only a handful of games on it that aren't complete garbage.

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck!

[LordLimecat]

Hardcore gamers werent the Gamecubes demographic either, nor the Wii's. Nintendo seems to not really care what a niche of gamers think.

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck!

[Toonol]

I honestly enjoyed Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn more than any other game on any console this gen, and it's a Wii Tactical RPG.

Of course, according to their rating system, it may be the most 'hardcore' game published on the Wii.

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck!

[The Moof]

I file Fire Emblem under the "old school nintendo" category since it's yet-another-updated-version of a Nintendo series, similar to Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck!

[scot4875]

I file Fire Emblem under the "old school nintendo" category since it's yet-another-updated-version of a Nintendo series

Pretty much everything out today is an "old school Nintendo" genre with a different skin on it because Nintendo invented most of the action gaming genres we see.

Id invented the first-person 3d shooter.

Konami invented the rhythm genre.

RPGs were invented by dozens of different studios back in the early days of gaming.

That covers pretty much 95% of what's on the market today.

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck!

[man_the_king]

Hardcore gamers werent the Gamecubes demographic either, nor the Wii's. Nintendo seems to not really care what a niche of gamers think.

Is that why Nintendo are trying to say their new console is geared towards that "niche of gamers"?

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck!

[The Moof]

It's not simply an RPG game on a Nintendo system, it's a Nintendo-owned franchise. Like the others, it's never seen a game on another system. They even vigorously defended it as their property to the point that they tried to sue a game development studio for mimicking gameplay elements from Fire Emblem.

They're not different games in the same genre, they're quite literally "sequel X" from Nintendo, just like a new Mario or Zelda game.

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck!

[MikeBabcock]

Importantly, Sony stole me from Nintendo as a platform game lover with the Jak games and Ratchet & Clank. After playing either, Mario looks terrible.

When Naughty Dog moved up to the PS3 and made Uncharted, they continued the fine tradition they'd had with Jak & Daxter; excellent platforming mixed with shooting and storyline.

There's no game genre that I'm interested in that Nintendo excels in ... but to each their own.

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Wii U might be perfectly decent. But it might be in a rather awkward market position - "core" gamers no longer trust Nintendo, and "casual" gamers might not be looking to upgrade from their Wiis. That doesn't leave a large market to shoot towards.

It wasn't the "imprecise motion control" that turned core gamers off (most of them, anyway), it was the small library of games available (a trend that's been getting worse since the N64), the subpar graphics (on the Wii), and Nintendo's utter refusal to provide an online experience that isn't laughable. Oh, and refusing to add DVD playback in any form sure didn't help.

All of this is fixable, but the damage has been done. I've owned a SNES, N64, GC, Wii, GB, GBA, DSiXL, -and- a Virtual Boy. (I was young, and stupid.) But I picked up a PS3 this year, and my only regret has been not doing it sooner. I have an actual list of games I want to get now (cheap games. None of Nintendo's 'we'll keep it at the same price for 2 years because you don't have anything else to buy' pricing). The internet service doesn't make me want to weep. I can actually enjoy gaming on a big screen, high-def TV. Right now, the only thing Nintendo is promising to match on that list is the last item. (Their e3 lineup didn't impress me.) That's not enough to bring me back, and I suspect a lot of 'core' gamers are in the same boat.

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck!

[brkello]

I will never understand how profitable the game company is actually matters to any individual gamer. Like just because it is more profitable I should somehow like it better. The Wii was cute but aimed at non-gamers and was a miss when it came to people like me. I like the traditional controller much better. I like RPGs. I like the type of games that a regular controller allows more than the Wii-mote. I am not saying that Nintendo is foolish...ultimately it depends on the games. The first party titles are good, but have given up on innovation...people make fun of Final Fantasy XXX yet for some reason don't bash the millions Mario or Zelda title.

Re:Fools! You know nothing! Wii U will suck!

[qwak23]

I don't mean to troll, but your comment is exceptionally typical (hearing it since the previous generation) and fairly misinformed. Currently, there are more RPG's for the 360 than there are for the PS3. Though exclusive titles tend to be pretty rare these days so a good portion of both console's RPG's are available for both platforms. It's a little more difficult to compare shooters between the two since those tend to get filed under 'action' which includes non-shooters as well. Moving on to the wii and this whole hardcore gamer thing, I would probably consider myself to be a "hardcore" gamer, but that's based on my definition and everyone seems to have their own definition of what a "hardcore" gamer or even a what a "hardcore" game is. Is it based on how much a person games? What kind of games they play? (teh harc0hrz gemez) How entrenched in gaming culture a person is? How challenging the game is? I own all three consoles, in fact we have 2 wii's in the house as well as 2 DS's (second wii is Japanese model as my wife, being Japanese prefers playing games in Japanese, 2 DS's so we can play together). I use both my tower and my laptop for gaming and have a fairly large library on steam. Sure I enjoy party games, golf games and old school gaming, but you know I'd rather play tiger woods on the 360 than on the wii, and the party games are really only for parties. Most of what I play on the wii I would consider to be "Hardcore". Metroid, Donkey Kong Country Returns (probably the most challenging game in the series), Mario Galaxy, Mario Kart, etc Maybe they are a little too "cutesy" for the average gamer who has to have blood and titties in everyframe, but hey DKCR is way more of a challenge than bulletstorm, so if I need to play cutesy games just to have a good challenge than so be it.

I think you have lost touch...

[brunes69]

.. with reality because you don't seem to know what you are talking about and think the Wii U is just a controller.

The Wii U is not a Wii with a new controller. It is a totally new gaming system with hardware that is supposed to be far in advance of the 360 or PS3. The statement that Zelda HD could not run on a 360 or PS3 is totally factual. And whether or not you think the Wii had toy graphics is irrelevant because Wii U is not a Wii.

It amazes me the amount of flack Nintendo is getting over this console based on little information or mis-information. The fact of the matter is that by Q3/Q4 of next year, Nintendo is going to be THE ONLY company sitting with an 8th generation console. Microsoft and Sony have both said that they have no immediate plans to upgrade their consoles, and given the amount of money they both spent on bolting on motion controls to what they already have, this is unsurprising. the Wii U could be HUGE for Nintendo, if only for the fact that they won't have any other 8th generation hardware to compete with for quite a long time.

Re:I think you have lost touch...

[Lysander7]

True, but the projected audience to buy the Wii U is comprised largely (though not entirely) of the same demographic that owns the Wii currently, hence the purpose of this article. I think aside from having an alternate controller to the tablet, Nintendo needs the necessary games for the new system if they want to appeal to hardcore gamers and branch out their fanbase.

Re:I think you have lost touch...

[pecosdave]

I really think Sony is making a mistake not updating the PS3. I really think people might be willing to shell out for a new version that had new unheard of features like backwards compatibility with PS2 games, maybe a couple of extra USB ports, and maybe even memory card readers.

Re:I think you have lost touch...

[Seumas]

It seems to me that the target market for the Wii U is:

+ Middle aged people who haven't bought a console since the NES and they just remember that back in the day, Nintendo was "the shit".
+ Mom's who bought a Wii to stick in the living room for their kids and as far as they know, it's a total success and doing well and their kids love it, because they don't know any better, so when the next Wii comes out, it's an obvious replacement.
+ People who buy everything with Nintendo on it. Period.

I'll probably buy the Wii U at some point, even though I doubt I'll use it. I sort of collect consoles, anyway. I bought the Wii at launch and I know for a fact that I haven not played more than 20 hours total with it. Further, I haven't played it at all in three years (the week Boom Blox came out, in 2008). For the last year and a half, I haven't even plugged it in. In fact, after I bought my house, I think I left it in the garage in a box with a bunch of other stuff and haven't felt compelled to go dig it out.

Re:I think you have lost touch...

[PhrostyMcByte]

I didn't actually mention the Wii U or any of its new features, least of all the stupid new Dreamcast Tablet controller. Everything I said was about the Wii. Why? Really because, there's not much to talk about yet. The only thing they've shown that looks complete at all is the new controller. All the videos I've seen show acceptable graphics, but they're all just tech demos and thus not representative of anything but carefully prepared cutscenes.

The only interesting thing we know about the hardware is that the GPU is a Radeon HD, meaning it will support the modern programmable pipeline of modern desktop GPUs and thus be great to code for. The CPU is a multi-core Power but that doesn't mean much. In terms of performance, it could be anywhere -- but it will at least make creating cross-platform games easier.

I hope as much as the next guy that Nintendo knocks it out of the park -- I loved my NES, SNES, and N64. The hardware looks like it might be capable. I'm just not sold on their attitude. I think they've lost touch with gamers. I hope I'm wrong. Even if I am, it's going to be a tough battle to gain market share -- especially if they're not focusing on multiplayer and instead trying to replicate the Wii's success following the same game plan with yet another gimmicky controller.

Re:I think you have lost touch...

[cheekyjohnson]

+ Middle aged people who haven't bought a console since the NES and they just remember that back in the day, Nintendo was "the shit".
+ Mom's who bought a Wii to stick in the living room for their kids and as far as they know, it's a total success and doing well and their kids love it, because they don't know any better, so when the next Wii comes out, it's an obvious replacement.
+ People who buy everything with Nintendo on it. Period.

+ People who think the games are actually fun because they have a different opinion than others.

Re:I think you have lost touch...

[h4rr4r]

They could even have add a mode to run a more conventional OS on the console. I am sure a linux or BSD could be ported to it. They could call that mode AlternateOS.

Re:I think you have lost touch...

[LordLimecat]

(hoping you werent being facetious) PS2 backwards compatibility wasnt an unheard of feature and neither are the USB ports. The original version of the PS3 had both of those things. Later versions trimmed both down.

Re:I think you have lost touch...

[Pewpdaddy]

I love the franchise's from Nintendo, I've completed every Metroid game they've released and nearly every Zelda game(Majori's mask sucked!). My kids will likely end up with another Wii(they love the current one), but for me I'll be going the way of something with a solid online presence. It still baffles me that they haven't caught on that Multiplayer games online are where the meat is currently. And seriously if you haven't played through God of War 3 your cutting yourself short!! To quote the guy out of touch with reality: "Earlier comments from Shigeru Miyamoto indicate the new console will have more to offer in terms of online capabilities, but Nintendo isn't going to focus too heavily on that." I think someone should be looking for a new job.

Re:I think you have lost touch...

[zerocool^]

There have been at least four versions of the PS3 that had a subset of features (other than hard drive space) that would cause consumers to differentiate between them:

1.) Original - had essentially a PS2 inside of it (emotion engine chip, etc) for full hardware compatibility of PS2 games. 4 USB ports.

2.) Update - had software emulation for PS2 games. 4 USB ports.

3.) Update 2 - no capability to play PS2 games (can still play PS1 games), 2 USB ports, no media card reader.

4.) Slim - no capability for PS2 games, 2 USB ports, bigger hard drives and smaller footprint.

I have a (3), and I really miss playing PS2 games. But I just can't abide controller cords strewn across the living room anymore.

The reason they removed it was to force people to move on to the next platform. For the first few years of the PS3's cycle, they were still selling more PS2's. I understand, and I'm ok with that, but I think that they've accomplished their goal now.

I really, really, really wish they'd release a software package in the PSN store that you could buy in order to be able to play PS2 games. Hell, I'd pay $50 for it.

Re:I think you have lost touch...

[RKThoadan]

I'd add the following:

+ People who do most of their hard-core gaming on PCs and just use console games for more casual family friendly fun (Boom Blox for the win!)

+ People who buy relatively few console games and know that the true gems on each system all shine equally bright (Okami, Brawl)

+ People who enjoy odd games that aren't going to be made on the other systems (The Endless Ocean series)

Re:I think you have lost touch...

[Miaomiao]

They're using two types of controllers: The wii controllers and the new one. Most games will probably end up using the wii motion plus types of controllers.

It's not even a huge leap in innovation, they're bringing the same "gimmick" that turned out to be a giant success with the DS to a console.

It's also enough of a nod that Sony is listing their new PSP as being workable as a controller with PS3, and selling it as such.

Re:And so the horde of twelve year olds yells

[Lysander7]

Why would I care a bunch of families bought the Wii? All I care about are the games I care about playing, none of which are offered on the Wii. (except possibly Zelda, though it's at about a nine-year-old's level of difficulty)

Not sure why this was moderated troll

[Sycraft-fu]

He's very right. The Wii's big problem was gimmicky games. I've seen very few solid titles for it. Most of them are silly gimmicks that are designed around messing with the motion controller. Also, it gets in the way of some of what should be good titles. They focus on doing silly things with the controller that makes it harder to play the game.

A good example of this is looking at the top selling Wii games. You exclude the sports games that come with the Wii (since people didn't really buy those, they got them as an included deal) and what are your top games? Mario Kart and the Wii Fit. Mario Kart is a legit good game, if a rehash of stuff already done but the Wii Fit? Pure gimmick and it sold 23 million copies.

Now before you try to argue, consider this: The Wii Fit is an exercise machine. That is its function. Also please realize that videogames don't magically change someone's personality or actions. The go look up exercise machine stats. You discover they are very, VERY under used. People buy them, thinking it'll motivate them to become thin, and then set them aside since the machines do not bring motivation. Same deal with the Wii fit. A girl I know has a Wii fit, a treadmill, an elliptical, and a stair master, none of which get used despite her wish to lose weight since motivation is the problem, not access to technology.

Continuing on the Wii's list you see the next top games are all Mario titles.

The parent is really right, the Wii badly suffered from having crappy, gimmicky, games. That caused people who are in to games to not be so interested in it. Wasn't because they said "Man I hate this motion controller," it was because they couldn't find many titles they wanted to play.

In my observation, Wiis are mostly like board games: People get them, mess around with them a little, get bored, set them aside only to occasionally pull them out at parties.

I know a lot of people who own Wiis, I know exceedingly few, none in fact, that game on them regularly. Those that do game regularly also own another console (or both other consoles) or a computer and game on them.

Re:Not sure why this was moderated troll

[WillAdams]

A counterpoint. The Wii is the only game console we (me, wife, daughter 16 and son 11) have.

The intersection of good games which implement Wii Motion controls really well is vanishingly small --- Red Steel 2 being the poster child. Unfortunately Red Steel 1 and Dragon Quest Swords tried hard but were handicapped by happening before Wii Motion Plus was available.

Marvel Ultimate Alliance is a _lot_ of fun, and it's very cool to administer beat-down moving the Wii remote around.

First Person Shooters work well --- pointing w/ the Wii Remote is unambiguous, fast and natural --- Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition is considered by many to be the best implementation of that title (but hampered by coming out before the Wii Zapper), Goldeneye 007 is a _lot_ of fun (and has a rage-quitting inducing segment in the solo campaign which is quite difficult, so gamers should feel adequately challenged) and was presaged by Link's Crossbow Training (which has excellent ``Ranger'' FPS-like segments). Conduit, Call of Duty, et. al. The problem is developers found it easier to create games on rails like Ghostsquad...

Metroid Prime Trilogy's upgrade to IR pointing was _really_ well done, and it does have the difficulty which hard core gamers enjoy.

Speedracer was actually quite fun, w/ ``Car-Fu'' moves done by doing more than just rotating the wheel, but I'd like to see a racing game w/ a more realistic physics engine and tighter controls.

And there are games w/ excellent reviews which didn't appeal like Mercury Meltdown Revolution

Lots of games which tried hard and I didn't really find to be fun --- Overturn, Ski and Shoot, &c.

And of course, as this article notes, it also functions as a normal game console so things like the Lego franchise, Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, &c. are available.

That said, I think (hope) that the only game which will keep our Wii going long-term will be Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword.

Re:Not sure why this was moderated troll

[DavidTC]

I know a lot of people who own Wiis, I know exceedingly few, none in fact, that game on them regularly. Those that do game regularly also own another console (or both other consoles) or a computer and game on them.

The thing that baffles me is how this is supposed to be a problem for Nintendo.

Yes, we know serious gamers don't play on the Wii. This is because Nintendo, instead, decided to sell to casual gamers, and went out went and sold the Wii to something like three times the entire console market. At a profit, it should be pointed out, unlike some other consoles.

I can't even imagine what Nintendo is talking about at this point. If they double the price of their console to support the graphics and stuff that 'core gamers' want, they'll end up removing it from casual gamers consideration...and trying to compete, with Sony and MS, over a market that's a fraction of the size of the one they already have!

If I were Nintendo, I'd be going the other direction. More casual stuff. Put a Hulu and YouTube interface in it. Try some Angry Birds if you can. Make it easier for people to buy games. Turn it in to the multi-player equivalent of a smartphone.

Nintendo made an epic decision to leave the 'We want a bajillion terahertz processor with 32x antialiasing and blah blah, and then we'll sell the $1000 boxes at a loss and try to make it back on game licensing' business. Screw that rat-race.

Hey, you! Yeah you! Single mother who's never played a video game. You want to play virtual tennis? Yes? And there are more of you then all game consoles ever sold to 'serious gamers' put together? Hrm...

Re:Not sure why this was moderated troll

[NeoMorphy]

I agree, Red Steel 2 was an awesome game on the Wii!

I lost track of the number of times I played "Resident Evil 4" on the Gamecube and when the Wii version came out it was even better. The aiming was more intuitive and made the game feel more real.

After using the Wii, FPS on other systems where you have to move the reticule via joystick before firing seems archaic. I love being able to move with the analog control in my left hand, while shooting at targets with my right. If I had to use a joystick control for both hands it would destroy the immersion effect and instead turn it into a math problem, which is fun, but not as much fun!

Another effect I like is when some games like "Silent Hill: Shattered Memories" and the Resident Evil shooter-on-rails games use the wiimote as a flashlight! I was totally blown away by how real it felt! You hear a noise, move the flashlight and suddenly there's a zombie in your face and you press the trigger as a reflex response!!

Re:Not sure why this was moderated troll

[NeoMorphy]

What makes you think they won't put Hulu and Youtube on it? They already have a NetFlix channel. I don't see the point though, Blu-ray players and TVs are already coming out with the ability to browse the web, use Hulu+/Netflix/Youtube/etc, and even DLNA. I'm sure they'll do it anyway, despite the redundancy.

Nintendo is just competing with the other consoles. Sony and MS finally stopped laughing at the Wii controls and realized they needed to come up with something to compete. In turn, Nintendo is improving the graphics and processor speed to compete with Sony and MS. Adding better graphics and processing speed years after Sony and MS did allows them to do the same for a lower cost and not have to sell the consoles at a loss.

Zelda

[Lord Lode]

I think a good new Zelda game could do the trick :)

Re:Zelda

[Lysander7]

Provided they come out with one every six months and it isn't the difficulty level of a nine-year-old, maybe.

Re:Zelda

[Lord Lode]

What, no, a GOOD one, not one that takes only 6 months to develop :/

Re:Zelda

[Lysander7]

True that. I meant they'd need one that often to keep me entertained, as that's the only reason I even stay with Nintendo in the first place.

Wii U Shop channel

[Trashman]

I know it might be a little premature to bring this up but, Nintendo has yet to explain how my digital Purchases from the Wii Shop Channel can be moved over to a Wii U. I'm somewhat annoyed that they tie the purchase to a machine and not an account. How this process is handled will be a (major) deciding factor of whether I buy the new console or not. The online capabilities and the available games will be the other factors.

Re:Wii U Shop channel

[WillAdams]

Well, for the 3DS they created a tool (free downloadable) which allowed one to move purchased from a DSI over to a 3DS --- presumably they'll do something like that.

Re:Wii U Shop channel

[JustNiz]

seriously, why anyone does digital/online purchases when you can buy the same thing on physical media boggles my mind.

It wouldn't be so hard to understand if there weren't already plenty of examples where some weasely corporate policy change has left customers without use of something they already paid for.

There never seems to be any equitable compensation in return or any comebacks on the company involved either. One example was when Microsoft decided to close MSN Music so turned off its DRM server leaving millions of customers with unplayable music files.

Re:Wii U Shop channel

[Trashman]

Digital Purchases have been with us some time now. You really can't get your mind around the convenience that offers?

Everyone brings up the worst case scenario of the company running the DRM server goes bust and you lose your purchases. It happens, Yes; it is a risk. But I would also argue that things like Valve's Steam for example, is DRM done right. And that Valve's model is what these companies should aspire to. With the ideal scenario being no DRM at all. Sadly, we don't live in an ideal world.

Re:Wii U Shop channel

[JustNiz]

>> You really can't get your mind around the convenience that offers?

Yes I can. What I can't get my mind around is the lack of foresight a lot of people continue to have.

Re:Online

[Seumas]

When was the last time you received spam on PSN or XBL? After several years of using both, I have never received one piece of spam on either one. At any rate, it's a lame excuse for not having a way to play with other people online or chatting while you play in 2011, without going through a bunch of ridiculous hoops.

Re:Online

[SniperJoe]

Agreed. I've never received a piece of spam on PSN in the years I've been on there. Granted, I do get angry messages (generally questioning my sexuality or the current activities of my mother) from time to time from people regarding Call of Duty or Battlefield, but those tend to amuse me.

All Talk

[polyp2000]

If Nintendo really want to increase appeal to hardcore gamers - they can start by putting a stop to crap like this ...

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/06/resident-evil-mercenaries/

N...

Re:Online

[Seumas]

You know, the same here. I play online via the 360 90% of the time, yet 90% of the messages containing nothing but "you suck" or "ur a fag" in them from random people that I've happened to play with or against online come from PSN. Go figure.

Re:Online

[tepples]

If matchmaking is done out of band, then how do you recommend that I find other people who own a copy of the same game with whom to play?

Three words...

[X3J11]

Three words...

Nintendo 3DS EULA.

Okay, technically six if you expand the acronym. Nintendo's End User License Agreement for the 3DS handheld has done enough damage to turn me off of any and all future products they may try to peddle. It may cause some dismay with my children (two boys, both in the prime target audience age range) but I've already explained the why of it in an attempt to make them aware of how some companies seem determined to completely alienate their customers (such as the recent Capcom idiocy over Resident Evil, a franchise they both are fans of). Neither of these companies will see another cent out of our pockets.

Not everyone has cable or fiber Internet

[tepples]

Valve has shown that lowering prices increases revenues.

For one thing, this is true in the case of urban gamers, who have access to with triple digit GB/mo transfer allowances. Gamers in rural areas depend on cartridges or discs because all they can get for Internet access is satellite or 3G, whose cap generally isn't high enough for a dual-layer DVD's worth of data in a whole month. Production of cartridges and discs adds a fixed overhead to the price of each copy.

For another, some games are based on a work of authorship or setting licensed from another party. This includes any book or movie tie-in, any sports game whose player characters represent real life athletes, or any rhythm game (e.g. DDR or Rock Band) or sandbox game (e.g. GTA series) with a licensed soundtrack. The licensor may insist on a fixed fee in dollars per copy sold, which likewise adds a fixed overhead.

Re:Not everyone has cable or fiber Internet

[ultranova]

Production of cartridges and discs adds a fixed overhead to the price of each copy.

Bullshit.

Oh, I guess it's technically true, but a dollar per disk is not relevant overhead for a 20-dollar product. It certainly doesn't excuse charging 50 dollars instead.

Re:Not everyone has cable or fiber Internet

[tepples]

a dollar per disk is not relevant overhead for a 20-dollar product.

From the price calculator you linked: DVD-5 with a 16-page manual in shrink wrapped Amaray style keep cases is $2.06 each in lots of 1000. Then add $2.00 for domestic postage and $1.00 for the mailer and labor, and we've used up one-fourth of the $20 MSRP.

And handheld devices generally don't use disks; they use solid-state media. How much do microSD cards or USB flash drives cost?

Control methods and ongoing cost in mobile

[tepples]

All the innovation is happening in mobile right now

Let me know when innovative mobile games from smaller studios can use a D-pad. And let me know when innovative mobile games from smaller studios can run on a device that doesn't cost $70 per month to operate, which a lot of especially younger gamers can't afford.

Re:Control methods and ongoing cost in mobile

[h4rr4r]

What is with your focus on everything being for everyone?
Not every product fits every market, and that is not a problem. I own devices made by companies most have never heard of, heck they may never had heard of the type of device either, but the company still turns a profit. Go ask normal folks what digikey is, they will not know. Yet, digikey in its target market is huge.

Re:Control methods and ongoing cost in mobile

[CronoCloud]

What is with your focus on everything being for everyone?

Tepples has Aspergers and IIRC used to babysit to make money before he got some job placement assistance.

Re:Control methods and ongoing cost in mobile

[tepples]

What is with your focus on everything being for everyone?

Because I've discovered that there happens to be nothing for people like myself and other people in my family.

Not every product fits every market, and that is not a problem.

No device happens to fit my needs, and that is a problem for me.

Re:Control methods and ongoing cost in mobile

[h4rr4r]

What need is that?

Re:Control methods and ongoing cost in mobile

[tepples]

I'll explain later; it'd be too far offtopic to do so now. But suffice it to say that a device for everyone will likely have better economies of scale (and thus better affordability) than a device marketed only to geeks.

Re:Something stinks....the Nintendo Pii-U.....

[ledow]

Yeah, because the biggest selling console ever, an instantaneous household name, and 5-years of entirely profit-making sales are a horrendous thing for a company.

*YOU* may not like it, but Nintendo haven't suffered in the slightest. You're really complaining because you aren't in their target market, not that Nintendo aren't doing well for themselves.

Personally, I bought a Wii (original) last month. It was finally what I consider a sensible price for a brand-new full kit (including chargers and two Wiimotes-with-MotionPlus and all the associated gubbins), and I can pick up games for £3-4 each in some cases. I'd played it before at my parents (who have had one for years) and it was... well... a games console like I remember other games consoles - no messing about, into a game, play it, no having to even read an instruction manual and away you go, bursting into fits of laughter when someone falls off the track for the millionth time, or someone else makes silly faces while pretending to row a canoe. When I was a kid, I would have killed for it, even though I consider myself a pretty experienced gamer.

Get this - my girlfriend, who had never played any video games except "Purple Turtle" on the Commodore 64 (go look it up, be sure to bring a resuscitator in case you die laughing), is always switching it on and playing it and wants first go of all the "new games" we get and even browses through them on the shop shelves herself.

It's not targeted at you. It never was. The next one might be but I'd doubt even that - more likely they just want a slightly larger market than the Wii had, so they make similar money even if people decide the Wii is good enough for them.

"The majority of gamers" aren't even in your age-group, most probably (I believe the median age has shifted to those born in the late 70's/early 80's. Again, you're unconsciously confusing "gamer" with some private definition that can't include grannies and 3-year-olds. Nintendo really don't care about your zombie games, because they made more money out of targeting a common base (and not a particular age-group) than all the other console manufacturers did in the last 5 years.

Sony's big mistake was updating the PS3

[tepples]

I really think Sony is making a mistake not updating the PS3.

No, Sony's big mistake was updating the PS3. The removal of Other OS from the original model led directly to the high-profile intrusions.

Re:Sony's big mistake was updating the PS3

[drinkypoo]

whoosh!

Whoosh back, the joke wasn't funny to nerds because it was 100% wrong. The fact that this result is funny is an entirely separate joke.

Re:Sony's big mistake was updating the PS3

[Duradin]

Which is why the PS4, XBox 720 or any other $CONSOLE++ will never have anything even remotely Other OS like.

So here's to you, Mr. Temper-tantrum man(s).

Re:Sony's big mistake was updating the PS3

[tepples]

Which is why the PS4, XBox 720 or any other $CONSOLE++ will never have anything even remotely Other OS like.

Good for them. I'll choose to stick to the PC and avoid this lockdown nonsense.

Re:Sony's big mistake was updating the PS3

[MikeBabcock]

The existance of OtherOS is what lead to the cracks, not the removal.

The removal was just too late.

Faceball

[tepples]

Headshots on the heads of your friends Mii characters.

Better yet, headshots with the Walmart smiley face mascot. Look for "MIDI Maze" or "Faceball 2000".

Re:Online

[DrXym]

Yes it is nonsense. It's an onerous burden that has a chilling effect on online gaming. Nothing it does cannot be done in a more open and useful manner through a combination of a single sign on and parental controls.

Re:Online

[Abstrackt]

You could try a game-related forum. It doesn't seem like an elegant solution on the surface but if none of your friends are gamers it's a good way to meet people you get along with.

It looks like Nintendo's new console...

[mark-t]

.... is just a DS, where the top screen is your TV. Although the resolution seems respectable, the hand-held display is single-touch only, which only further makes it seem like the bottom half of a DS to me.

Also... from what I've heard... the console can't have more than one of these special controllers connected to it at any time, so it doesn't even open up any new multiplayer potential.

On another note, I can find absolutely no indication that Nintendo might be finally loading their upcoming console with a respectable amount of internal memory, which if they repeat the maneuver that they did with the Wii in that department, and don't have at least a comparable amount of general purpose and video memory that can be found on competing consoles, they are probably just going to end up frustrating 3rd party console game developers trying to develop sophisticated stuff for it to the point that they simply won't bother... and will just do stuff for nintendo's competition.

Re:It looks like Nintendo's new console...

[drinkypoo]

Also... from what I've heard... the console can't have more than one of these special controllers connected to it at any time, so it doesn't even open up any new multiplayer potential.

this is the single biggest fuckup. supposedly you can still use ye olde wiimote (hopefully with motionplus... maybe even required) so they're not throwing anything away. But they only permit one tablet. This is idiotic at best. Imagine a run and gun with a sniper mode on your tablet... or how Nintendo could just take sports games and run off with them with everyone having their own screen for play selection et cetera. Dungeon crawlers with map and inventory in your hands. They could get the price per unit down under sixty bucks for sure... I mean DX is kicking out tablets with way bigger screens for $89.

Re:It looks like Nintendo's new console...

[mark-t]

Of course... but imagining the play possibilities that could have been is rather moot as far as Nintendo is concerned. Regardless of what the device could have been, the Wii U will only support one controller with a screen at any one time, and it cannot even theoretically support more than one in the future... at least not without a significant redesign that would likely end up being a whole new console. The reason for this limitation, from what I have heard, is because the wireless connectivity they are utilizing just doesn't have the bandwidth to support more than one of these controllers being sent full motion video from the main console.

Re:It looks like Nintendo's new console...

[scot4875]

Also... from what I've heard... the console can't have more than one of these special controllers connected to it at any time, so it doesn't even open up any new multiplayer potential.

Somebody never played Pac Man Vs.

I'll forgive you, because a lot of people missed it, but that was by far one of the most fun, unique multiplayer experiences I've had in a videogame since the original WarCraft.

--Jeremy

Re:It looks like Nintendo's new console...

[mark-t]

I did say *NEW* multiplayer potential... one person on a small screen vs everybody else on your TV isn't exactly as innovative as it might have seemed around 2003 or so.

It still screams Nintendo DS to me... where the TV is your top screen.

Re:Online

[SniperJoe]

From everything I've heard about X-box live, the players there prefer to yell their insults into their headsets (and thus into your ear) rather than type up messages. But that's only anecdotal evidence, as I don't have an X-box.

Re:cost/performance

[sorak]

"Wii did not use HD because HD cost/performance at the time was low"

It was high, which means expensive. Baahhh, elementary math ...

Can you blame him? He got his degree from Wii U!

Re:And so the horde of twelve year olds yells

[Bagels]

To be fair: Nintendo has come up with something of a solution re: the "nine-year-old's difficulty" bit. Their more recent games (Mario Galaxy 2, Donkey Kong Country Returns, and Ocarina of time 3D) have all had "super guide" functionality - basically, a system that will optionally take over and play part of the game for you if you suck at nine-year-old levels. Seems like they've used that as leverage to start making their games properly challenging again for the rest of us. (Good thing, too; I don't think I died once during Twilight Princess or Wind Waker.)

I'm not sure where you see the contradiction

[Moraelin]

I'm not sure where you see the contradiction or being right vs being wrong, since it's different issues. Making money does not automatically equal quality or anything.

E.g., there's a billion dollar industry selling homeopathic pills that do nothing, or quantum chi crystal-power pendants that do nothing, or magical/wishful thinking "self-help" books that don't and can't work like that in the real world, etc. Or exercise machines which then sit idle in a corner and collect dust.

Now repeat business might be a more legitimate measure of whether something sucks or not. But selling some millions of overpriced consoles (for the hardware in them) based on a gimmick like pretending they're exercise machines, and then discovering that those people don't actually buy more games for them, nor actually use them to exercise... exactly what's the measure there whether it sucks or doesn't suck?

I mean basically you could say the same about scientology and its e-meters. It doesn't even do or diagnose anything even according to the church of scientology. ("By itself, this meter does nothing. It is solely for the guide of Ministers of the Church in Confessionals and pastoral counseling. The Electrometer is not medically or scientifically capable of improving the health or bodily function of anyone and is for religious use by students and Ministers of the Church of Scientology only.") So it's fair to say that it sucks. But they made billions selling them and auditing to gullible morons anyway. How's the latter a measure of the former?

Sure, it's a feat of marketing, and for Nintendo's investors it doesn't suck. But then I think whoever criticized the Wii controller at launch wasn't talking about that.

I think what some people forget

[Sycraft-fu]

Is that high sales are not the same as being great. Yep, the Wii sold a lot. That doesn't mean it is a great gaming system, that means it is a gadget people decided they wanted. Now it could also be a great gaming system but that it sold tons doesn't mean anything.

My favourite example along those lines is always exercise equipment. It sells very well, yet it is not used by most people who buy it. They get it, hoping it will motivate them to exercise but since the problem is motivation and not access, it just sits around. That is sells well is not an indication that it is great, just that people want the gadget. They buy it for what they hope it will be (a motivator) and not what it is (a tool).

That the Wii sold extremely well means it is a success for Nintendo, that doesn't mean it is what gamers are after. Also, while current figures are hard to get your hands on, attach rates seem to bear this out. Xbox 360 owners buy more games per console sold than Wii owners. All in all it still may well be a win for Nintendo since they make money on hardware and also less sales per unit but with more units can be more sales. However it does demonstrate what people are saying about the Wii not being great. People buy it and toy with it, then kinda set it aside (I have a number of friends who did just that).

Also, given that Nintendo is focusing on this, maybe there is more too it than some think. Nintendo may well realize that the Wii sold well because of it's gadget/cool appeal and that is not something which you can often cause to happen twice. They may have decided they need to focus on selling to gamers because that is what will keep them going over the long run.

why?

[__aazsst3756]

They have a very nice niche going as the game console for casual gamers. I'm sure nobody here wants to hear it, but this is a much bigger market than hard core game systems. With Playstation and Xbox fighting for top spot, the Wii was picking up the rest of gaming community, or the third product position in the market. They were the 7-up "uncola" to Coke and Pepsi. Why change course now? Just add HD and a faster processor and call it a day.

I was always turned off by the low resolution of the wii. We have an xbox with kinect, but my mom and all of her friends own wii's.

Japanese to English translation

[elrous0]

Nintendo: We aren't going to focus too heavily on that

Translation: Microsoft does it better than we ever could, so fuck it.

Re:cost/performance

[__aazsst3756]

Nope, he was right if referring to a ratio (which he was).

As an RPG fan, I say it's too little, too late.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

I had a SNES as a teenager, and I loved it. It had Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy VI, Chrono Trigger, Axelay, Cybernator, Megaman X, Shin Megami Tensei, Wizardy V: Heart of the Maelstrom, Secret of Mana, Secret of Evermore, Super Mario RPG, Super Metroid, Castlevania IV, A Link to the Past, etc.

I skipped the N64 because the only RPG available was Quest 64, and I didn't give a shit about Ocarina of Time.

I bought a GameCube, but the only games worth playing were Metroid Prime, Metroid Prime 2, Eternal Darkness, Tales of Symphonia, and Viewtiful Joe.

I bought a Wii, and it collects dust unless I feel like replaying Trauma Team, No More Heroes, or Muramasa: the Demon Blade.

I'm not buying a Wii U. Since Nintendo of America has no intention of releasing games like Xenoblade, The Last Story and Pandora’s Tower in the US, I have no further use for Nintendo.

Re:As an RPG fan, I say it's too little, too late.

[MikeBabcock]

Both Ogre Battle 64 and Ayden Chronicles were excellent RPGs on the N64. Just FYI.

Re:As an RPG fan, I say it's too little, too late.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

I had forgotten about Ogre Battle 64, and this is the first I've heard of Ayden Chronicles. Thanks.

Re:As an RPG fan, I say it's too little, too late.

[Windwraith]

My feelings exactly. The SNES time had the best RPGs, and I practically abandoned the genre (in favor of roguelikes) due to the current offerings beyond PSX's time.
Sure, modern RPGs have charm, but I miss console JRPGs, emphasis on the J, where many games attempted to do new things in terms of upgrading items and characters.
PC RPGs (not MMOs) have always been "make your dude, explore the world", ever since the times of Ultima/Might and Magic, and they draw their appeal from customization and such. Modern games such as Oblivion still follow that formula. (this is the reason I moved to roguelikes, since I enjoy the explorative feel of M&M games,
Alternatively, we have plot-based occidental RPGs that kind of follow the old JRPG theme but with less "pop" plotlines.

Yeah, there's a lot of vitriol against JRPGs, their pop characters and their simplistic plots. But Pokemon is still a best-seller and it embodies JRPGs from those eras (specially black and white with the simplistic N plot). Millions sold on release day.
For me, JRPGs were all about unusual game systems, like combos in Phantasy Star IV and Chrono Trigger, Materia in FFVII, early customization like Breath of Fire 2 (where your choice of "custom town" influenced gameplay significantly, specially the item combiner), elemental rock-paper-scissors, the bizarre HP=power mechanics of Paladin's Quest (Lennus), and incredibly amusing games like Illusion of Time and Terranigma (my favorite RPG ever, with that strange narrative full of monologue and a sense of fairly convincing gloom).

Re:As an RPG fan, I say it's too little, too late.

[MikeBabcock]

Pretty good RPG -- I played through the entire quest three times to try out multiple ending options and such.

A couple notable bugs in the mid-game ... so save periodically if you try it out.

Re:cost/performance

[Half-pint HAL]

High cost over low performance = low ratio.

It isn't necessiarly

[Sycraft-fu]

But that doesn't mean it is a good system for gamers. The argument Wii fans seem to trot out is "The Wii sold the most, therefore it is the best game console." That isn't the case. The Wii is a gadget that lots of people wanted. That's wonderful, but doesn't make it a good game console (doesn't preclude it form being a good one, just doesn't mean it is one).

Also Nintendo may well realize that a lot of what drove Wii sales was novelty and gimmick factor. That is wonderful, money in the bank, however that kind of thing doesn't sustain as novelty implies. They may well be watching sales figures, particularly software sales which is where the big money is, and saying "Hmmm, we need something that attracts more traditional gamers, as the Wii's charm is wearing off."

If you have a successful novelty item the worst thing you can do is to rest on that and say "This is what we'll sell forever." As the term novelty implies, it wears off.

Also please remember that for all the Wii's success, it still has nothing on the Playstation 2. That sold far more units, far more software, and stands as the most popular console of all time (150 million systems). It had nothing special going for it either, just a normal game system. What it had though was a bunch of titles people wanted to play, and that was what did it.

Seems to me like Nintendo is trying to be forward thinking and that is a good idea.

Re:Something stinks....the Nintendo Pii-U.....

[DavidTC]

Get this - my girlfriend, who had never played any video games except "Purple Turtle" on the Commodore 64 (go look it up, be sure to bring a resuscitator in case you die laughing), is always switching it on and playing it and wants first go of all the "new games" we get and even browses through them on the shop shelves herself.

My mother bought a Wii. My mother had never played a video game in her life, unless you count Solitaire on the computer. She'd certainly never purchased one.

If I were Nintendo, I'd be going in the other direction, and trying to turn Wiis into the television equivalent of smartphones. Throw Youtube on there, for example. They have Netflix, so can clearly do it. If they were very clever, they could even have a 'network media player' on it...it has the power, and it's at a cost-point where it can compete with those systems!

And have everyone sign up for a 'store', like how iPhones work, so that people can instantly purchase things. (Last I checked, you had to buy 'points' and then spend them. That's how I bought Mario 3 and Zelda for my mother's Wii for me to play. It's possible this has changed.)

If Nintendo can occupy the 'like a smartphone, but on the TV and multiple-player' space, well...

I can't quite imagine why Nintendo thinks they want to reattract 'serious gamers', or what they're doing with this 'Wii U'. Forget 'serious gamers'. Serious gamers are whiny idiots, that market is already full, and Nintendo's been coasting on their name in their field for some time.

Re:cost/performance

[morari]

Wii was not accepted by core gamers because they did not want to abandon their preferred control approach.

So you know what we're going to do to fix that? Come up with another gimmicky controller... this time some kind of tablet thingy. That'll get everyone behind us!

Re:Online

[tepples]

if I recall correctly, Mario Kart on the Wii has online play & matchmaking, and it doesn't require any friend codes

Animal Crossing: City Folk requires friend codes.

gee, if only there were some way that random people could come together online and setup a venue where people could post messages containing their friend codes and coordinate online play.

Back when Nintendo used to run an official gaming forum, posting one's friend code was a banning offense.

Re:Stick with your Niche

[Toonol]

DVD players don't target 'casual' or 'hardcore' movie watchers. Consoles shouldn't either. I imagine Nintendo is simply trying to position their new console as one catering to everybody... not specifically the casual (like the Wii or iPhone) OR the hardcore (PS3 or 360).

Don't know if it will work, but it's purely a marketing/perception issue. The console itself is agnostic.

Re:Dear Nintendo...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, yes I'm sure they do notice something, and that something is people who claim to be "core gamers" on the internet are usually fake little bitches. Meanwhile, those of us with a brain have looked past the graphics and other supposedly gimped capabilities of the Wii and found many enjoyable experiences that only the Wii could offer. Now scoot on out of here you pretentious fuck.

Porting hardcore JRPGs

[hansamurai]

Nintendo of America just announced they will not be localizing Last Story, Xenoblade, or Pandora's Tower to the Wii, even though there was a huge campaign to bring them over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rainfall

This is pretty much the opposite of catering to the "hardcore" gamer crowd, though I guess they probably think that means people who play Call of Duty.

Re:Porting hardcore JRPGs

[hansamurai]

That's why a number of gaming outlets who normally wouldn't touch this stuff with a 100 foot pole jumped all over the fan translation of Mother 3 that came out a few years ago.

Re:Online

[residieu]

Will we have separate friend codes for each game too? It wouldn't be so bad if I could register my friends on the machine and be done with it, but with every new game I have to exchange a new set of codes? bah.

Online, 3rd Party Games & Virtual Console

[TheNinjaroach]

Three strikes against Nintendo for things that turned out very poorly for the Wii. I should add $60-$80 per controller to the mix, but they've already struck out.

The Virtual Console was the selling point for the Wii for me, but where are the games? I read somewhere that Japanese gamers have access to a much wider library of games to purchase for their Virtual Console than US gamers like myself. Where's the love, Nintendo of America?

Every online-enabled game I have is so bad that I don't even want to use it. Give me a friend system and quit treating the Internet like it's too big and scary to operate.

The disappointment level for my Wii is pretty high. It's almost off the charts for my PS3. I have no interest in an XBOX or paying a monthly fee to use it. I think I'm just going to sit out on the next generation of video game consoles.

Re:Online, 3rd Party Games & Virtual Console

[tebixan]

I'm actually pretty happy with the Virtual Console selection. So far they've had everything I want to play. I will agree that everything else about the Wii is a disappointment though.

Game Developers

[Anonymous Coward]

I think one of the reasons core gamers were not as "fond" of the Wii was a simple one, the games. This really relates back to the game developers themselves. As someone who has worked in the games industry for a few decades, I can assure you that the Wii was one of the least pleasurable modern consoles we had a chance to develop against for a variety of reasons.

First, Nintendo has always been a pain for 3rd party developers to deal with on a business level. I had a hell of a time getting a dev kit when I switched to a more indie style game studio. This is a problem with Sony and MS too, but we found it far easier to get the ball moving quickly, while with Nintendo it took over a year to get anything done due to the papieren bitte nazi attitude they take with 3rd party devs.

Second, the APsI for Wii suck. Yes, they plain suck. I know some people will say that you can just get game engines that already work on Wii. Sometimes that is possible, but many types of games require custom engines or due to the Wii's lesser hardware, required lower-level tweaks not needed on other systems. Developing your own engine and even tweaking an existing one is time consuming and therefore expensive. Nintendo had poor APIs and did very little to make a programmer's life easier. Conversely, XBOX 360 was simple to dev for because large parts of PC code were easily portable (not just because of DirectX), and we found the hardware differences such as the PPC to be well documented. PS3 was a bit harder, but at least we could get good documentation from a variety of sources and there were few "stupid" first party tricks.

Nintendo loves to do all kinds of things in their first-party games and then not even give related examples to demonstrate the best way to do something. As a result, a lot of 3rd party devs are reinvented the wheel constantly on Wii. We experienced this also on other past Nintendo platforms. It seems from a development and marketing point of view, they often only care about their own games. This of course pushes devs to other platforms that they can develop for faster and cheaper, while arguably producing a better quality product. Features (gimmicks?) like motion control alone are not enough to sell at least wise investors in your development. The snowball effect of devs preferring other platforms only works against Nintendo no matter how good their first-party games are. Eventually, there will be tons of great 3rd party games on other consoles, and Nintendo is left behind. They've rinsed and repeated this problem on several consoles now.

In a nutshell, Nintendo needs to do its best to make development as easy as possible. If we can get things done faster and cheaper, then we will develop for your platform. Instead, if you chose to play your cards close, treat 3rd parties like crap, and ignore problems in your APIs, we will go elsewhere. Core gamers will flock to your system if there are good games. A few releases of great zelda and mario games are not enough for everyone, and certainly not sufficient to retain people long-term.

good that they are experimenting...

[schlachter]

while Nintendo might not always get it right, I like that they are leading the experimentation of control interfaces and game system design...so we don't get caught in a cycle of incremental improvements but nothing revolutionary.

Hard to Believe

[theinvisibleguy]

When they just announced they're not releasing Xenoblade Chronicles, The Last Story, and Pandora’s Tower in North America. And those are just the latest games we're missing out on, what about Pikmin 2, Fatal Frame and other titles missing from the wii lineup.

Re:Online

[The Moof]

When was the last time you received spam on PSN or XBL?

Any time a hyped-up popular title comes out - CoD, Killzone, Halo, and even Brink spawned some spam messages from my recent players list. Granted, they don't last long since since you can file a report against them, but claiming it doesn't happen is like claiming the sun won't rise tomorrow.

Re:Online

[scot4875]

Personally, I got tired of on-line gaming back in the 90s and early 00s, so the lack of online features for me wasn't a huge deal with the Wii.

That said, I did think it was pretty stupid that they required different friend codes for each game; the Wii itself already has some sort of built-in list of other friends' consoles (to exchange messages or some other relatively useless things), so there's really no reason that games shouldn't be able to make use of that feature. If they just reduced it to a single friend code per console, I think that would be a decent compromise with what they have now.

And if I have to choose between no online play and XBox Live's ads in your face every time you turn on the console, I'll stick with solo gaming.

--Jeremy

I think they might just find another big niche

[jewelie]

(TL;DR Hardcore > FPS)

They made a fortune from people who are traditionally non-gamers, they aren't stupid.

Don't assume that the kind of titles on the PS3 and XBox 360 suit *all* hardcore gamers.

There's a currently untapped market out there of console gamers who aren't especially FPS obsessed, folk who the current gen consoles have failed. Much like the way that the Wii panders to the low flying fruit of the cutesy tree, the PS3 & 360 are stuck in a an unoriginality rut. There was more gaming variation on the N64, PSX and PS2 than has been produced for the 360. Even the original XBox had a wider selection of titles (mine's still going strong as my media box, xbmc4xbox rox! :)

I've been gaming and coding since the Atari 2600. Yet I've found my purchase of a 360 to be a wee bit disappointing to be frank, as I'm not obsessed with team-based headshots the selection is a bit weak.

Halo 3 was a total pile of shit (sorry, and yes I finished it.) Oblivion was brilliant, but was just more of the same of Morrowind. Orange box was good, but I've always enjoyed the Half-Life series - exception to my FPS rule. Fallout 3 and New Vegas are addictive but just too dark and FPSy for me, plus they.re more addictive than they are fun really.

There's a few okayish Arcade games, but they.re too damned expensive for my pockets - disc based games have the advantage of dropping in price over the years and have second hand markets.

Where's the in depth original stuff?

As a older hardcore gamer I'm feeling really failed by this console generation (of consoles.) :(

J x

Better name

[SnarfQuest]

Why do they insist on such crappy names? Instead of calling it a "Wee You", why not call it a "Poop Me"?

Re:Online

[thetoadwarrior]

I've been playing numerous 3DS games without entering a single friend code to play online. Maybe there is a friend code within my 3DS but I've not seen it and it has no problem letting me play with strangers.

Re:yeah...

[neminem]

*Never*? Given that you apparently can only think back as far as N64, allow me to expand your search a little further back: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NintendoHard